linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] KVM: selftests: Fix GUEST_PRINTF() format warnings in ARM code

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2024 13:00:08 +0800
From: Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@...wei.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
CC: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: selftests: Fix GUEST_PRINTF() format warnings in ARM
 code

On 2024/2/3 7:46, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> Fix a pile of -Wformat warnings in the KVM ARM selftests code, almost all
> of which are benign "long" versus "long long" issues (selftests are 64-bit
> only, and the guest printf code treats "ll" the same as "l").  The code
> itself isn't problematic, but the warnings make it impossible to build ARM
> selftests with -Werror, which does detect real issues from time to time.
> 
> Opportunistically have GUEST_ASSERT_BITMAP_REG() interpret set_expected,
> which is a bool, as an unsigned decimal value, i.e. have it print '0' or
> '1' instead of '0x0' or '0x1'.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>

Tested-by: Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@...wei.com>

> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/arch_timer.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/arch_timer.c
> index 274b8465b42a..d5e8f365aa01 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/arch_timer.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/arch_timer.c
> @@ -158,9 +158,9 @@ static void guest_validate_irq(unsigned int intid,
>   
>   	/* Basic 'timer condition met' check */
>   	__GUEST_ASSERT(xcnt >= cval,
> -		       "xcnt = 0x%llx, cval = 0x%llx, xcnt_diff_us = 0x%llx",
> +		       "xcnt = 0x%lx, cval = 0x%lx, xcnt_diff_us = 0x%lx",
>   		       xcnt, cval, xcnt_diff_us);
> -	__GUEST_ASSERT(xctl & CTL_ISTATUS, "xcnt = 0x%llx", xcnt);
> +	__GUEST_ASSERT(xctl & CTL_ISTATUS, "xcnt = 0x%lx", xcnt);

Unrelated to your patch, but it looks to me that we actually want to
print 'xctl' instead of 'xcnt' in the second __GUEST_ASSERT().

Thanks,
Zenghui